Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos, etc

[teobdl]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

The proposed initial study from Serg is worthwhile.

Just to briefly step back to the original intent of the thread, I think the most glaring question is simply whether differences are even seen between super ideals and regular ags 0 ideals with the same C's and proportions.

 

[John P]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

The information gathered from the survey suggests that slightly informed customers repeatedly see "performance" differences in a single sitting. If these results are to be taken seriously, then the next logical step includes more rigorous studies... not in spite of the fact that the survey wasn't scientific but precisely because it wasn't scientific.

I've seen several follow-up questions like this one from teobdl. In that spirit, while I don't have science to contribute, it might be useful to know the details of this sitting as I recommend it be done... That doesn't mean all the jewelers follow it precisely - I'm not the boss of them - but it's what I teach in the interest of serving their clients.

By the way, my training efforts cover the gamut of Cs, not just cut.

I'd prefer blind testing. It's how I learn and how I teach. It's just not very practical. First, some particulars are usually indicated or requested. Second, when showing the tray of selected options the shopper neatly always asks: "Okay. What am I looking at?"

Most jewelers point-and-blurt it out. I know the intent is to be truthful and open, but they are killing the opportunity for the shopper's eyes to speak first and even transcend potentially erroneous preconceptions. I heavily discourage point-blurt in training, I'd rather do quasi-blind... Thus, in my system you let the viewer know all will be revealed, but ask "can we take a tour first, to see what your eyes tell you?" Most shoppers are cool with that and many love it, but some personalities insist on details first. Vive la difference. Either way, as they go to the different prescribed lighting conditions the client should make the observations, with limited info coming from the pro. After the first tour, ask if they want to return to any of the stops. Some will. During the process they ask questions: Okay, is this one...(higher color...bigger...better cut). I encourage the reply "Hey, you tell me..." but that risks becoming annoying. Ultimately, even if you release a thread of info back, the point is to let them make conclusions.

After the tour is over you reveal all of the details, and discuss why they observed what they did. This can include a color-card, magnifying loupe, H&A-ASET scopes if appropriate - possibly a UV pen. For uninitiated consumers this is often very mind-opening. "Wow, I didn't know H was so white / Hmm, I think I can see that feather now that I know where it is / This one just seems to pop more..." Well, let's talk about why that might be...

I feel the best showroom pros function like a microcosm of Pricescope. They hear a shopper saying he wants F VVS. No problem. However, further dialogue reveals they saw yellow Gs and peppery VS in the mall, which is an opportunity for a paradigm shift. Similarly "I saw an ideal cut" could refer to a chain-store-buzzword, or it might imply an experience with an AGS jeweler. Seeking to understand what the consumer knows, and what they might still learn, is key. All of this helps guide what you put on the tray. The shopper's walkabout, observations, correlations, and finding out "why" frequently builds confidence in their own process and goes toward cementing the buying decision that suits them best.

Do know it might require multiple trays. It's also common for a client to come back a few times, perhaps deliberating in several places before making a decision. By the way, the pro guiding the exercise really matters. I'm fortunate to work with many who listen, educate and make the journey fun for the client. That goes a long way.

So while it's a limited time-frame - relative to 2 weeks in your own environment - and it's not blind but we work hard to seek understanding. It's the basis of my comments regarding the human physiology of individual eyesight. People see and value different things.

 

[pfunk]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

The proposed initial study from Serg is worthwhile.

Just to briefly step back to the original intent of the thread, I think the most glaring question is simply whether differences are even seen between super ideals and regular ags 0 ideals with the same C's and proportions.

This is what I was most interested in. What Serg and Garry are proposing sounds quite different though. Worthwhile no doubt, but different from what the thread originally discussed.

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

tmorrow,
I feel slighted you didn't include me along with everyone else. :}

I am not interested in slighting anyone (although I may easily have done it my style is blunt ), but I think proper context and an understanding of bias is important for any debate or discussion.

I included the smile because I was chuckling about it. Blunt is good I like blunt.

I get what your saying and have been a wild card influence for a long time.

I must say I learned a lot and appreciated your posts as Strmrdr. I don't know what you do in the diamond trade, what you sell (except Octavia) and as far as I know you don't have a horse in the game when it comes to Round Brilliant diamonds and performance nuances. If I am misinformed as to what you are selling (or not selling) I would be happy to hear it but that is why you weren't included in my post above.

You are correct I do not have any financial interest in any round or any other diamond other than Octavia.
To be honest I find that some attempts to differentiate rounds at the top end are a huge reach. A lot of work needs to be done before I will buy into it. I do however love craftsmanship and the level some of them are cut makes me like them a lot just for that reason.

It is a real shame that cut grading and AGS cut grading in particular has stalled much of the research and many people view it as settled.

What I find a shame is that you don't reach out to Peter Yantzer or Jason Quick or someonelse from the AGSL lab and discuss with them a collaboration or discuss in technical detail what the problems you are having with their cut grading. You might even post in detail your summary of the conversation afterwards so that others on this board can understand the issues you have with them.

It has been a while since I have talked to them but I have pointed out my concerns. I doubt that they would agree to such a format because anything they say would be considered official from the lab and there would be hoops to jump through.

From my basic understanding they are very much into helping diamond designers and on evaluating and optimizing new designs for educational and for future grading work that might come to the lab.

Yea they are helping people with designs to get ags0.

It would appear you had some issues with step cuts and the way they are evaluated by the laboratory but does this need to translate to a vague but general denouncement of the lab's cut grading in every "Cut Research" thread.

I feel the step cut grading is somewhat useless. While it might recognize a top cut it is possible to get ags0 and not be what I would consider a top cut because they don't consider some vital ingredients that make a top step cut. . With rounds you can take the guidelines and apply a high level of care in cutting them and except at some of the edges and get at least a nice diamond. With step cuts one could follow their guidelines exactly and get a blah diamond.


In my mind it isn't the lab holding anyone back at all, you don't like them, lots of LP brands (like Bluenile Signature rounds) don't use their grading reports and market in other ways which seems to work out just fine.
These days you could design the best diamond cut since sliced bread, cut it to perfection and the first thing someone will ask.. is it AGS0. That kills incentive to go outside the box and push research forward. From a financial standpoint you are better off cutting the heaviest diamond from the rough that barely makes ags0 and market it heavily.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Hi Garry,
Several of the posters in this thread are clearly members of the scientific community. As scientists and researchers yourselves, you and Serg must agree with the host of variables already identified here which must be controlled in order for such a study to be considered valid.

The act of conducting a survey will naturally produce some kind of results, whether accurate or not. And of course, conclusions will be drawn based upon whatever results are produced. Given the likelihood of inconclusive or errant findings from a non-rigorous survey, I do not see how such an exercise will further the goal of greater understanding. The effort is certain to fail to answer the questions that are being asked of the study in any kind of statistically significant or scientifically valid way.

In my view, while it might be a fun show-and-tell activity that many people will find interesting and entertaining, it would not be ethical to allow the impression that the exercise is anything but that, unless you are able to successfully implement the controls that a true study actually requires.

Bryan, your points in bold are exactly my problem with a narrow numerical system of cut grading like AGSL.
Whatever data is garnered from scientific testing is evaluated to form the cut grade.
What someone else sees as a "0", I may not.
GIA did a survey- and came up with a far wider top cut grade.
And this is regarding round diamonds, which present far less challenges than Fancy Shaped Diamonds.
I believe Serg alluded to the issues with AGSL Fancy Shape Cut grading.
Aside from some purposeful uses of having them call a diamond "Ideal", which is a great sales tool- AGSL fancy shaped cut grading is embraced by very few sellers.
IMO it's far too narrow in scope- meaning some truly well cut, desirable stones will get second tier cut grades.

Good question, with a relevant answer. These companies were the very first on the map to embrace a cut-quality proposition. Tiffany was onboard years before Tolk's book or Kaplan's cutting, inspired by Henry Morse in Boston. The others have a similar "most beautiful and luxurious" perception that's become embedded in history. In some ways it's a double-edged sword. They will always source and sell amazing diamonds, but are unlikely to modernize any promotions to emphasize cut improvements. Doing that might infer "The Blue Box" now holds something that performs better than the one in your grandmother's day. I don't see any upside there.

Also...

John Pollack, you are so refreshing. You shine.

...It's my bald head?

Then there's this aspect: In the unlikely event everyone agreed that a given set of proportions is "best" would we be heading toward a diamond world where all cutters are producing stones that look exactly like the next one?
I would find that to be an incredibly boring diamond world.

David,
Let me just comment on the fancy cut grading. Nobody will dispute that other than princess, only a very limited number of fancy shapes are being sent to AGS for grading. Whether that is a result of perceived weaknesses in their fancy cut grading system, too much manufacturing cost required to get the ideal grade (insufficient ROI due to labor and weight loss), limited awareness in the consumer market, or a combination of factors - I do not know. But it's worth pointing out that only a very limited number of rounds are sent to AGS as well, relative to the huge quantities of rounds in the market. So, I don't think you can necessarily equate the number of certs they issue (or do not issue) to the quality or validity of their grading system.

Also remember that AGS fancy grading is very new to the market being released post 2005. And the work of the AGS was greatly hampered by the recession of 2008 and its aftermath. But I don't think you have heard the last of AGSL!

There is obviously a huge need for a well designed and repeatable cut grade system for fancies that is embraced by the market. I am quite sure that work will continue on bringing this about. It sounds like a targeted goal for Serg and his team of researchers as well. Eventually there will be systems that consumers can use to better understand objective light performance aspects of the fancies they are considering for purchase. Of course, there will continue to be many "flavors" and you will have to use your own eyes in the final determination. But light performance information will obviously be very useful for consumers to consider in the decision making process.

The approach AGSL has taken will not lead to every diamond looking the same. They have created highly specific grading metrics on a variety of different facet designs and can continue to do so on many more, on the strength of their diamond-specific ray tracing/light performance methodology. But each one takes the careful development of it's own unique metrics.

Again, I think we are very early in this game. Maybe not even out of the first inning yet.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Bryan,
My most sincere hope is that AGSL continues to grow and prosper.
Part of what has kept this discussion alive to so many years s that there's no clear cut answers for a solution.

In terms of AGSL Princess Cuts, I think the issue is so minor in terms of the market overal.
I just did a rapnet search.
Princess Cut- no defining factors ( size color clarity ETC) other than gem lab.
GIA =45513 diamonds available.
AGSL= 796 diamonds available.

I wholeheartedly respect sellers who carry AGSL princess cuts.

But I do not feel that the AGSL "light performance" data regarding princess cuts is conclusive.
A lot of the best cut stones will not garner the AGSL 000 cut grade. And look markedly different.
If this difference is shown in person, it can be very informative.
If people read a forum that definitively states that AGSL Princess cuts have superior light performance" as compared to well cut GIA graded diamonds, it's misinformation IMO

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Bryan,
My most sincere hope is that AGSL continues to grow and prosper.
Part of what has kept this discussion alive to so many years s that there's no clear cut answers for a solution.

In terms of AGSL Princess Cuts, I think the issue is so minor in terms of the market overal.
I just did a rapnet search.
Princess Cut- no defining factors ( size color clarity ETC) other than gem lab.
GIA =45513 diamonds available.
AGSL= 796 diamonds available.

I wholeheartedly respect sellers who carry AGSL princess cuts.

But I do not feel that the AGSL "light performance" data regarding princess cuts is conclusive.
A lot of the best cut stones will not garner the AGSL 000 cut grade. And look markedly different.
If this difference is shown in person, it can be very informative.
If people read a forum that definitively states that AGSL Princess cuts have superior light performance" as compared to well cut GIA graded diamonds, it's misinformation IMO

The problem is, there are very few really well cut GIA princess cuts on the market. That is why AGS Ideal princess cuts look very different!

Because GIA provides neither a reward nor penalty to manufacturers in the form of an overall cut grade, manufacturers continue cutting princess cuts they way they always have. No progress there. Look how much better rounds are being cut since GIA released their cut grade. They need to do the same with princess and have said they are working on it. But unless they move from a table-based system to a diamond-specific light performance model, it is hard to imagine they will ever be able to do it.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Bryan,
My most sincere hope is that AGSL continues to grow and prosper.
Part of what has kept this discussion alive to so many years s that there's no clear cut answers for a solution.

In terms of AGSL Princess Cuts, I think the issue is so minor in terms of the market overal.
I just did a rapnet search.
Princess Cut- no defining factors ( size color clarity ETC) other than gem lab.
GIA =45513 diamonds available.
AGSL= 796 diamonds available.

I wholeheartedly respect sellers who carry AGSL princess cuts.

But I do not feel that the AGSL "light performance" data regarding princess cuts is conclusive.
A lot of the best cut stones will not garner the AGSL 000 cut grade. And look markedly different.
If this difference is shown in person, it can be very informative.
If people read a forum that definitively states that AGSL Princess cuts have superior light performance" as compared to well cut GIA graded diamonds, it's misinformation IMO

The problem is, there are very few really well cut GIA princess cuts on the market. That is why AGS Ideal princess cuts look very different!

Because GIA provides neither a reward nor penalty to manufacturers in the form of an overall cut grade, manufacturers continue cutting princess cuts they way they always have. No progress there. Look how much better rounds are being cut since GIA released their cut grade. They need to do the same with princess and have said they are working on it. But unless they move from a table-based system to a diamond-specific light performance model, it is hard to imagine they will ever be able to do it.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one Bryan.
By all means, I agree that the majority of GIA graded Princess Cut diamonds are not really well cut.
But there's still many princess cuts that are truly well cut graded by GIA.
Let's postulate that a relatively small percentage- say 10% of the 45513 diamonds are really well cut.
That number still decimates the total number of AGSL graded diamonds.

Not that numbers answer this debate- but a blanket statement that GIA graded princesses are not well cut is simply not accurate.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

tmorrow you have arrived with few posts but it seems a lot of experience. It seems likely you are in the trade, and if so the rules dictate that you declare that. If there is a good reason not to then you can discuss that with the Admin, Ella and Andrey.

If you are a long time lurker consumer, then welcome.

Thanks to everyone who has offered advice on how we might run a survey.
The website that Sergey referred to is http://www.Cutwise.com - PS CEO Andrey has allowed this to be posted.
I note that I have a few diamonds for sale, so posting Cutwise here is more of a conflict for me, for as you should all know, I am very careful not to become a competitor with Pricescope's clients.
The diamonds on there are part of the beta testing as the site is still under development.

 

[pfunk]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Bryan,
I think RockDiamond is going to continue to tell you that there are different "looks" of fancy cuts that some prefer over others. What AGS or any other lab deems as the target "look" and therefore deems as "ideal" cut may not be what everyone is looking for or what everyone would say looks "ideal" to them. The same reason why Serg wants to test round cuts with steeper pavilions. Some people may prefer their look and their perceived fire, even though AGS would chew them up and spit them out. Or maybe I am misinterpreting.

Having said that, it is always nice to have a lab grade that accurately assesses performance for what "most" would find attractive and that is based on scientific measurements. But when it is conveyed to consumers that anything that doesn't acheive the highest grade is a "poor performer" it persuades consumers to listen to the masses and the lab as opposed to figuring out for themselves what flavor they might like.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

hi Pfunk, If TL is Bryan, can I please be David?

Do you feel that "most" (your quotes) consumers, or observers will agree with AGSL Princess cut grading standards, or find them most attractive?
For sure there are cutters who avoid cut grades because they can cut a heavier diamond if they are not concerned with beauty.
But rest assured that there are indeed cutters who place a high priority on appearance ( light performance) producing princess cuts with amazing performance that are diametrically opposed to the way an AGSL 0 cut grade princess cut looks. And a part of this is producing a stone with very good spread for the weight.

 

[pfunk]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

hi Pfunk, If TL is Bryan, can I please be David?

Do you feel that "most" (your quotes) consumers, or observers will agree with AGSL Princess cut grading standards, or find them most attractive?
For sure there are cutters who avoid cut grades because they can cut a heavier diamond if they are not concerned with beauty.
But rest assured that there are indeed cutters who place a high priority on appearance ( light performance) producing princess cuts with amazing performance that are diametrically opposed to the way an AGSL 0 cut grade princess cut looks. And a part of this is producing a stone with very good spread for the weight.

David,
I will not detract from an otherwise educational discussion on fancy cuts with my complete lack of knowledge on the subject. I am entirely uneducated on fancy cuts and have not taken time to view many of them personally. I therefore have no way to answer your question. I have read enough here to know that you are more appreciative of a broad range of what constitutes beauty, and are less likely to accept a highly stratified cut grade for fancy shapes. It is too likely to rule out many stones that consumers would find beautiful. Is that an accurate observation? If not, I aplogize for my input towards Bryan regarding your apparent opinions.

 

[Serg]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I have much higher ambition than to Sell Vibox, Dibox, Diamcalc.
Our main goal to design( and sell of course) new Fancy cut diamonds with High performance for Human Vision( We designed several cushions, Marquise , Emerald)
to understand which diamonds have better Performance we( it is much bigger team than just me and Garry) designed Diamcalc, Vibox, Cutwise and many other tools which we do not sell( I also want to stop sell diamcalc, just because support is too expensive ).

I think that is a worthwhile cause and when you are ready to publish and link to videos in the VIBOX of these new designed diamonds I would watch them.

Our Cushion
http://cutwise.com/stone/6_MSSCUSHION10?format=video8Fire

round in same light environments
http://cutwise.com/stone/6_MSSRBC13?format=video8Fire

 

[JoshuaNiamehr]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

The proposed initial study from Serg is worthwhile.

Just to briefly step back to the original intent of the thread, I think the most glaring question is simply whether differences are even seen between super ideals and regular ags 0 ideals with the same C's and proportions.

teobdl,

Do you mean same depth, table, crown+pav combo's/sweet spots - with perfect H&A and not so perfect H&A?

 

[JoshuaNiamehr]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I have much higher ambition than to Sell Vibox, Dibox, Diamcalc.
Our main goal to design( and sell of course) new Fancy cut diamonds with High performance for Human Vision( We designed several cushions, Marquise , Emerald)
to understand which diamonds have better Performance we( it is much bigger team than just me and Garry) designed Diamcalc, Vibox, Cutwise and many other tools which we do not sell( I also want to stop sell diamcalc, just because support is too expensive ).

I think that is a worthwhile cause and when you are ready to publish and link to videos in the VIBOX of these new designed diamonds I would watch them.

http://cutwise.com/stone/6_MSSCUSHION10?format=video8Fire

UNBELIEVABLE!! GREAT WORK! The ViBox and DiBox never cease to amaze me.

 

[JoshuaNiamehr]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

The information gathered from the survey suggests that slightly informed customers repeatedly see "performance" differences in a single sitting. If these results are to be taken seriously, then the next logical step includes more rigorous studies... not in spite of the fact that the survey wasn't scientific but precisely because it wasn't scientific.

I've seen several follow-up questions like this one from teobdl. In that spirit, while I don't have science to contribute, it might be useful to know the details of this sitting as I recommend it be done... That doesn't mean all the jewelers follow it precisely - I'm not the boss of them - but it's what I teach in the interest of serving their clients.

By the way, my training efforts cover the gamut of Cs, not just cut.

I'd prefer blind testing. It's how I learn and how I teach. It's just not very practical. First, some particulars are usually indicated or requested. Second, when showing the tray of selected options the shopper neatly always asks: "Okay. What am I looking at?"

Most jewelers point-and-blurt it out. I know the intent is to be truthful and open, but they are killing the opportunity for the shopper's eyes to speak first and even transcend potentially erroneous preconceptions. I heavily discourage point-blurt in training, I'd rather do quasi-blind... Thus, in my system you let the viewer know all will be revealed, but ask "can we take a tour first, to see what your eyes tell you?" Most shoppers are cool with that and many love it, but some personalities insist on details first. Vive la difference. Either way, as they go to the different prescribed lighting conditions the client should make the observations, with limited info coming from the pro. After the first tour, ask if they want to return to any of the stops. Some will. During the process they ask questions: Okay, is this one...(higher color...bigger...better cut). I encourage the reply "Hey, you tell me..." but that risks becoming annoying. Ultimately, even if you release a thread of info back, the point is to let them make conclusions.

After the tour is over you reveal all of the details, and discuss why they observed what they did. This can include a color-card, magnifying loupe, H&A-ASET scopes if appropriate - possibly a UV pen. For uninitiated consumers this is often very mind-opening. "Wow, I didn't know H was so white / Hmm, I think I can see that feather now that I know where it is / This one just seems to pop more..." Well, let's talk about why that might be...

I feel the best showroom pros function like a microcosm of Pricescope. They hear a shopper saying he wants F VVS. No problem. However, further dialogue reveals they saw yellow Gs and peppery VS in the mall, which is an opportunity for a paradigm shift. Similarly "I saw an ideal cut" could refer to a chain-store-buzzword, or it might imply an experience with an AGS jeweler. Seeking to understand what the consumer knows, and what they might still learn, is key. All of this helps guide what you put on the tray. The shopper's walkabout, observations, correlations, and finding out "why" frequently builds confidence in their own process and goes toward cementing the buying decision that suits them best.

Do know it might require multiple trays. It's also common for a client to come back a few times, perhaps deliberating in several places before making a decision. By the way, the pro guiding the exercise really matters. I'm fortunate to work with many who listen, educate and make the journey fun for the client. That goes a long way.

So while it's a limited time-frame - relative to 2 weeks in your own environment - and it's not blind but we work hard to seek understanding. It's the basis of my comments regarding the human physiology of individual eyesight. People see and value different things.

John,

Say we take a round diamond in packaging A, out to a test subject and say it’s really expensive and the best cut available. Then go in the back and bring out the exact same diamond again in packaging B. Say it’s very well-priced and an excellent value. Have the customer comment on both of them.

I believe that would be a scientific method to run this experiment, as well as determining if psychology has any impact. I do often read here the importance of diamonds being mind clean, I think this is a good way to see if "mind cleanliness" has anything to do with this.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

hi Pfunk, If TL is Bryan, can I please be David?

Do you feel that "most" (your quotes) consumers, or observers will agree with AGSL Princess cut grading standards, or find them most attractive?
For sure there are cutters who avoid cut grades because they can cut a heavier diamond if they are not concerned with beauty.
But rest assured that there are indeed cutters who place a high priority on appearance ( light performance) producing princess cuts with amazing performance that are diametrically opposed to the way an AGSL 0 cut grade princess cut looks. And a part of this is producing a stone with very good spread for the weight.

David,
I will not detract from an otherwise educational discussion on fancy cuts with my complete lack of knowledge on the subject. I am entirely uneducated on fancy cuts and have not taken time to view many of them personally. I therefore have no way to answer your question. I have read enough here to know that you are more appreciative of a broad range of what constitutes beauty, and are less likely to accept a highly stratified cut grade for fancy shapes. It is too likely to rule out many stones that consumers would find beautiful. Is that an accurate observation? If not, I aplogize for my input towards Bryan regarding your apparent opinions.

Hi Pfunk,
Sorry if my question was phrased in a sharp manner.
Actually, I find your posts to be remarkably insightful, and more valuable in many ways than any of the tradespeople who are contributing.
As an educated consumer, your impressions are very important.
Reading PS would certainly give a person the impression that an AGS000 is guaranteed to be beautiful.

My position is that AGSL000 Princess Cuts are indeed very beautiful ( to me) and occupy a special position in the market
They provide a value to some buyers.
But they are not scientifically better.
If someone prefers a spreadier princess cut, and can find a nice one, they will sacrifice nothing as compared to and AGSL000
It's a matter of taste, the AGSL style stone is not cut "better" because there's less leakage. Just different.

 

[pfunk]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

hi Pfunk, If TL is Bryan, can I please be David?

Do you feel that "most" (your quotes) consumers, or observers will agree with AGSL Princess cut grading standards, or find them most attractive?
For sure there are cutters who avoid cut grades because they can cut a heavier diamond if they are not concerned with beauty.
But rest assured that there are indeed cutters who place a high priority on appearance ( light performance) producing princess cuts with amazing performance that are diametrically opposed to the way an AGSL 0 cut grade princess cut looks. And a part of this is producing a stone with very good spread for the weight.

David,
I will not detract from an otherwise educational discussion on fancy cuts with my complete lack of knowledge on the subject. I am entirely uneducated on fancy cuts and have not taken time to view many of them personally. I therefore have no way to answer your question. I have read enough here to know that you are more appreciative of a broad range of what constitutes beauty, and are less likely to accept a highly stratified cut grade for fancy shapes. It is too likely to rule out many stones that consumers would find beautiful. Is that an accurate observation? If not, I aplogize for my input towards Bryan regarding your apparent opinions.

Hi Pfunk,
Sorry if my question was phrased in a sharp manner.
Actually, I find your posts to be remarkably insightful, and more valuable in many ways than any of the tradespeople who are contributing.
As an educated consumer, your impressions are very important.
Reading PS would certainly give a person the impression that an AGS000 is guaranteed to be beautiful.

My position is that AGSL000 Princess Cuts are indeed very beautiful ( to me) and occupy a special position in the market
They provide a value to some buyers.
But they are not scientifically better.
If someone prefers a spreadier princess cut, and can find a nice one, they will sacrifice nothing as compared to and AGSL000
It's a matter of taste, the AGSL style stone is not cut "better" because there's less leakage. Just different.

David,
No need for apologies. It wasn't sharp at all. I just wanted to make it clear that I am not educated when it comes to fancy cuts.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

hi Pfunk, If TL is Bryan, can I please be David?

Do you feel that "most" (your quotes) consumers, or observers will agree with AGSL Princess cut grading standards, or find them most attractive?
For sure there are cutters who avoid cut grades because they can cut a heavier diamond if they are not concerned with beauty.
But rest assured that there are indeed cutters who place a high priority on appearance ( light performance) producing princess cuts with amazing performance that are diametrically opposed to the way an AGSL 0 cut grade princess cut looks. And a part of this is producing a stone with very good spread for the weight.

David,
I will not detract from an otherwise educational discussion on fancy cuts with my complete lack of knowledge on the subject. I am entirely uneducated on fancy cuts and have not taken time to view many of them personally. I therefore have no way to answer your question. I have read enough here to know that you are more appreciative of a broad range of what constitutes beauty, and are less likely to accept a highly stratified cut grade for fancy shapes. It is too likely to rule out many stones that consumers would find beautiful. Is that an accurate observation? If not, I aplogize for my input towards Bryan regarding your apparent opinions.

Hi Pfunk,
Sorry if my question was phrased in a sharp manner.
Actually, I find your posts to be remarkably insightful, and more valuable in many ways than any of the tradespeople who are contributing.
As an educated consumer, your impressions are very important.
Reading PS would certainly give a person the impression that an AGS000 is guaranteed to be beautiful.

My position is that AGSL000 Princess Cuts are indeed very beautiful ( to me) and occupy a special position in the market
They provide a value to some buyers.
But they are not scientifically better.
If someone prefers a spreadier princess cut, and can find a nice one, they will sacrifice nothing as compared to and AGSL000
It's a matter of taste, the AGSL style stone is not cut "better" because there's less leakage. Just different.

David,
I find your statements confusing. On one hand you frequently disparage the term "light performance" because you contend that scientific measurements cannot predict a diamond's beauty (I'm paraphrasing), but then you say above "there are indeed cutters who place a high priority on appearance ( light performance) producing princess cuts with amazing performance that are diametrically opposed to the way an AGSL 0 cut grade princess cut looks."

Can you post an example of a princess cut that has "amazing performance" that is "diametrically opposed to the way an AGSL 0 cut grade looks"?

 

[tmorrow]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

tmorrow you have arrived with few posts but it seems a lot of experience. It seems likely you are in the trade, and if so the rules dictate that you declare that. If there is a good reason not to then you can discuss that with the Admin, Ella and Andrey.

If you are a long time lurker consumer, then welcome.

Thanks for the welcome then I guess. I buy, invest in, and sell companies for a living so I get to learn about businesses very quickly. I have never made a dime in the jewellery trade(nor lost any either) and never will but, it wasn't for lack of diligence or research. My hat goes off to you and others who do and can but it seems like a very hard way to make an "easy" living. I'll stick to technology companies with better margins, less competition, and where I can make a big multiple on my investment in 3 - 5 years. The jewellery business just doesn't tick those boxes. Its a fun hobby(especially for my wife) but not a good business for me.

The website that Sergey referred to is http://www.Cutwise.com - PS CEO Andrey has allowed this to be posted.

Do you think you should include an ASET image or Vibox ASET video included in the listing for the Holloway Diamonds being offered for sale?

I note that I have a few diamonds for sale, so posting Cutwise here is more of a conflict for me, for as you should all know, I am very careful not to become a competitor with Pricescope's clients.
The diamonds on there are part of the beta testing as the site is still under development.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Hi Brian,
Yes, I can- but of course the greater issue is that "light performance" is a totally unscientific, non specific phrase.

I use the term here because it's part of this discussion. But for my part in the discussion, I need to continually repeat that the way a diamond uses the light - it's "optical signature" is not an aspect that can be quantified by calling one "better than" another.
Actually an aspect of performance can be measured scientifically, but discussions of light performance here virtually never include the measurable aspects- such as spread


WEIGHT: 1.18ct
QUANTITY: 1
SHAPE: Princess Cut
COLOR: G
CLARITY: VS1
MEASUREMENTS: 6.15 x 5.97 x 4.07 mm
TOTAL DEPTH: 68.2%
TABLE SIZE: 78.0%
POLISH: VG
SYMMETRY: EX
FLUORESCENCE: NONE
GIA REPORT #: 17482225

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Hi Brian,
Yes, I can- but of course the greater issue is that "light performance" is a totally unscientific, non specific phrase.

I use the term here because it's part of this discussion. But for my part in the discussion, I need to continually repeat that the way a diamond uses the light - it's "optical signature" is not an aspect that can be quantified by calling one "better than" another.
Actually an aspect of performance can be measured scientifically, but discussions of light performance here virtually never include the measurable aspects- such as spread


WEIGHT: 1.18ct
QUANTITY: 1
SHAPE: Princess Cut
COLOR: G
CLARITY: VS1
MEASUREMENTS: 6.15 x 5.97 x 4.07 mm
TOTAL DEPTH: 68.2%
TABLE SIZE: 78.0%
POLISH: VG
SYMMETRY: EX
FLUORESCENCE: NONE
GIA REPORT #: 17482225

David,
Light performance is both scientific and highly specific in the AGSL cut grading system. Your opening statement indicates either a lack of understanding or willful denial of those well established facts.

The photo of your princess is very pretty. Not in my view "diametrically opposed to the look of an AGS Ideal", at least in this shot.

Having said that, the photo is taken in very specific lighting that I'm sure is flattering to the stone. It would be interesting to see the stone in diagnostic lighting as well as ASET.

The trade offs you are likely making here for the larger spread is a big table,very shallow crown and deficits in fire and other light performance aspects that are measurable. I will agree that if a customer is less concerned about those things than that the diamond has a larger footprint, then the customer may find this stone "better" than an AGS Ideal.

To me it's a little like the choice between a regular size peanut butter sandwhich with a nice amount of peanut butter, and a sandwhich made with the same amount of peanut butter spread out on thinner but larger pieces of bread. It looks better from the outside, but when you bite into it you find something lacking.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

We agree that the stone I posted has a fairly shallow crown, and large table.
You used the term " deficits in fire and other light performance aspects that are measurable"
"Fire" is a unique element, and possibly easier to predict- so let's leave that aside.
Which other light performance aspects are "measurable"?

I usually love analogies- but I fail to get the one about peanut butter...
Maybe a stone that's noticeably larger, yet costs less is getting more peanut butter?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

We agree that the stone I posted has a fairly shallow crown, and large table.
You used the term " deficits in fire and other light performance aspects that are measurable"
"Fire" is a unique element, and possibly easier to predict- so let's leave that aside.
Which other light performance aspects are "measurable"?

I usually love analogies- but I fail to get the one about peanut butter...
Maybe a stone that's noticeably larger, yet costs less is getting more peanut butter?

The other key aspects of light performance that are measured are brightness, leakage and contrast. It's hard to say about the other deficits without running it through ray tracing analysis. The numbers on a GIA report are woefully inadequate in terms of providing information that will enable consumers to understand much at all about cut quality and light performance. That is why there is a market full of princesses that are mediocre or worse. And the existence of all that inventory value, owned by so many GIA clients, is one of the reasons that GIA probably won't introduce a cut grade system any time soon. And if they do, it will have to be very forgiving.

To clarify on my analogy, if you take the same amount of peanut butter and the same amount of bread and you construct it to have a bigger footprint, you will lose some richness in the process. But if you don't care about how it tastes, and you want your sandwich to look bigger, well then that is a better sandwich!

 

[KobiD]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

To me it's a little like the choice between a regular size peanut butter sandwhich with a nice amount of peanut butter, and a sandwhich made with the same amount of peanut butter spread out on thinner but larger pieces of bread. It looks better from the outside, but when you bite into it you find something lacking.

Bryan,

What you have described is a personal taste. Some people may like less peanut butter and more bread. Others may value more peanut butter... and I think this is what David is trying to express.

While the tools may be able to indicate that a particular sandwhich has a richer peanut butter to bread ratio, it doesn't neccessarily make it a better sandwich.

The response to this, following with the analogy, is generally along the terms of "why would you buy a peanut butter sandwhich and not want as much peanut butter as you can get?"

Its not so simple.. especially, as David has also aluded to, if the smaller (yet richer) sandwich also costs significanlty more than the other that has more bread/spread.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

To me it's a little like the choice between a regular size peanut butter sandwhich with a nice amount of peanut butter, and a sandwhich made with the same amount of peanut butter spread out on thinner but larger pieces of bread. It looks better from the outside, but when you bite into it you find something lacking.

Bryan,

What you have described is a personal taste. Some people may like less peanut butter and more bread. Others may value more peanut butter... and I think this is what David is trying to express.

While the tools may be able to indicate that a particular sandwhich has a richer peanut butter to bread ratio, it doesn't neccessarily make it a better sandwich.

The response to this, following with the analogy, is generally along the terms of "why would you buy a peanut butter sandwhich and not want as much peanut butter as you can get?"

Its not so simple.. especially, as David has also aluded to, if the smaller (yet richer) sandwich also costs significanlty more than the other that has more bread/spread.

Agreed Kobi. It is all about personal taste. As long as the customer knows what he is buying, he can make a good decision. Light performance analysis is very helpful to have available if you are a consumer. You don't have a trained eye and you don't want to rely solely on seller. Plus, consumers today shopping GIA princesses are generally selecting the best from a pool of very mediocre stones. They are not ending up with top quality diamonds very often. I understand GIA's predicament, but I wish they would rip off the bandaid. There would be so many more beautiful princess cuts produced if they were to release even a watered down overall cut grade system. We saw how it dramatically improved cutting in rounds in short order.

 

[tmorrow]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

If someone prefers a spreadier princess cut, and can find a nice one, they will sacrifice nothing as compared to and AGSL000

That defies the laws of physics sir! There are always tradeoffs, significant better spread, one gives up potential brightness, fire and flash size. But I think you already know this and have still maintained that luddite position for years and in numerous PS threads.

 

[tmorrow]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

To me it's a little like the choice between a regular size peanut butter sandwhich with a nice amount of peanut butter, and a sandwhich made with the same amount of peanut butter spread out on thinner but larger pieces of bread. It looks better from the outside, but when you bite into it you find something lacking.

KobiD the analogy is close but not really framing the issue. To say one doesn't have as much potential for fire, large flashes or brightness as another is not a matter of taste or "science" its a fact and to call it taste or an opinion is an unsupportable and disingenuous stance to take. To repeat that position in years worth of ps technical threads because a fair part of the audience reading lacks the experience and knowledge to distinguish between a fact an an opinion on advanced topics about "light performance" is even worse.

The personal taste part is does one prefer [greater spread and lower price] vs [great potential fire, brightness and size of flash].
That is a valid taste decision where one is not "better" than the other. That is the choice we should allow people to be informed about and decide for themselves. They will not be able to make that choice though if the cheaper one apparently "sacrifices nothing" and the more expensive one is only arguably "better" not actually better in some areas.

 

[tmorrow]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

The website that Sergey referred to is http://www.Cutwise.com - PS CEO Andrey has allowed this to be posted.

Do you think you should include an ASET image or Vibox ASET video included in the listing for the Holloway Diamonds being offered for sale?

The title DIBOX gallery was confusing I get it now, you often include ASET images for each stone, whereas I initially thought this was a gallery of sample images.

 

[Serg]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

If someone prefers a spreadier princess cut, and can find a nice one, they will sacrifice nothing as compared to and AGSL000

That defies the laws of physics sir! There are always tradeoffs, significant better spread, one gives up potential brightness, fire and flash size. But I think you already know this and have still maintained that luddite position for years and in numerous PS threads.

Tmorrow,
1) Fire ,Scintillation and even Brilliancy strongly depends from diamond size. bigger diamond or diamond with bigger positive spread can show more Fire flashes than smaller diamonds or diamonds with zero or negative spread. ( both per area and in total)
it is objective fact which are completely missed in AGS grading system.
for example bigger diamond with worse proportions can have better Performance than smaller diamonds with better proportion. which is more nice is debatable question. AGS does not give any answer to this issue.
2) You posts show you had been on PS in long time( before 2 April ). who are you and why do you use new PS registration?